Speaking of stamping out dissent, AlphaTard stomps in and reminds Jerry just who's boss:

Quote

He didn’t distribute “creationist literature” as you accused. His sole action in that regard was leaving the internet address of Answers In Genesis in the redacted essay. It’s expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don’t see how he could have avoided citing the source.

You’re back on moderation so your comments can be reviewed for accuracy before being posted. In the future I suggest you exercise a little more due diligence before accusing someone.

Ah, what would we do without our clownish friend Dave?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I guess "In the beginning God someone made everything in 6 days. Then God that same someone rested. Then there was a great flood and God someone told Noah someone else to put two of every animal on Noah's Ark a boat."

Speaking of stamping out dissent, AlphaTard stomps in and reminds Jerry just who's boss:

Quote

He didn’t distribute “creationist literature” as you accused. His sole action in that regard was leaving the internet address of Answers In Genesis in the redacted essay. It’s expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don’t see how he could have avoided citing the source.

You’re back on moderation so your comments can be reviewed for accuracy before being posted. In the future I suggest you exercise a little more due diligence before accusing someone.

I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to makecertain

Does OW qualify for "academic free use"? Academic is not the word I first think of to describe that site.

Also, exactly how stupid is Jehu anyway?

Quote

If you are so intimidated by opposing view points that would fire a teacher for raising objections to evolution, I think your word view is pretty obvious.

I mean, come on, if you were that brain damaged you'd not b e able to type would ya? But like Jehu himself says

Quote

repressing truth in order to protect his fragile world view

makes his world go round.

EDIT: OW is teh funny. Just to remind everybody, Patrick approves all the comments! :)

Quote

the designer designed dodo birds SPECIFICALLY to supply meat to Dutch and Portuguese sailors for a brief period during the late 1500s - perhaps to help them with their spreading of Christianity. This would seem to confirm that God is Christian and not Islamic - otherwise He would have let the closer-by Arabs do the extinctifying

I'm starting to think Quintilis is a deep-cover troll just messing with their minds at OE:

Quote

he faults you mention as well as many others might lead one to conclude that God is, at best, indifferent to our plight (and perhaps the Bible was a medieval swindle, complete with a clause cleverly-inserted - much like the one about the appointment of US Attorneys into the PATRIOT Act - allowing the post-Romans to keep eating their pork). The notion of a "perfect" and completely benign God is a relatively recent invention, a sanitized "fact" usually presented to children but generally outgrown even by fundamentalists. Certainly Aristotle didn't think the "gods" perfect and the Jewish YHWH admitted he was "jealous" (hardly a mark of perfection - it seems more like a sign of insecurity).I don't think much is gained by starting with the supposition that God (or, on this site, the designer) was either perfect or had perfect foresight. Clearly there are flaws and compromises in biological designs; no one is disputing that. And the fact of extinction indicates that perhaps the designer designed without knowledge of how the future would play out. (Although it's POSSIBLE the designer designed dodo birds SPECIFICALLY to supply meat to Dutch and Portuguese sailors for a brief period during the late 1500s - perhaps to help them with their spreading of Christianity. This would seem to confirm that God is Christian and not Islamic - otherwise He would have let the closer-by Arabs do the extinctifying.)I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else here. The best we can do is be open to new ideas, non-dogmatic, and bounce theories around. We're all wearing our Science Caps when we're in here and this frees us to debate, play Devil's advocate, and use other rhetorical devices. That way we can approach truth in a reasoned way, not accepting facts unquestioned from oracles and what not.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I'm starting to think Quintilis is a deep-cover troll just messing with their minds at OE:

They've no minds to mess with!IMHO there are no non-trolls on OW apart from the Mod, TroutMac, Mario and Scen24whatever. It's amazing, I'm surprised it's still running. I guess it's still there because Dembski set it going a while ago and in his reality denying mind it's a roaring success. I mean, if the man cannot detect his name in a list, how can he judge if OW is a worthy challenge to myspace etc? It's not like DS and Dumbski have ever made an appearence over at OW. It's just a tick in the "student outreach" box for them, another $50,000 in the bank from some rich doddering old deluded man no doubt.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

It’s expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don’t see how he could have avoided citing the source.

You’re back on moderation so your comments can be reviewed for accuracy before being posted.

DaveScot, the stickler for attribution and accuracy. This is the same DaveScot who took some unattributed text sent to him by a friend, posted it, later modified it, and brushed aside the fact that it was a hoax because "that’s hardly the point".

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

The pitiful thing is he thinks he's setting forth a devastating logical argument that no one's ever thought of before, and which of course will shortly vanquish 'Neodarwinism' once and for all.

I think Borne needs to get out more.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Of course, he doesn't provide a source for this quote. Was it his The Antiquity of Man from 1915, or perhaps Concerning Man's Origins in 1927?

80 or 90 years ago, some (but by no means all) scientists fell for a deliberate hoax, which was later definitively revealed to be fake. Therefore, all scientists are wrong about everything.

My standard response to every fundie nutter who wants to yammer to me about Piltdown:

Whenever fundies talk about Piltdown Man, they for some odd reason neglect to mention a few things:

First, it was EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, not creation "scientists", who discovered the Piltdown fraud. The creation 'scientists" were just standing around looking stupid.

Second, many of those evolutionary biologists rejected Piltdown right from the beginning, since it did not fit into the established fossil sequence. While they did not suspect fraud, they did suspect that the jawbone and the skull simply did not belong together.

Third, the evolutionary biologists (not creation 'scientists') who discovered the fraud did it using RADIO-DATING techniques --- the very same ones that creationuts keep telling us are so wildlyinaccurate and unreliable.

And finally, since creationists reject both radio-dating AND the order of the fossil record, they have NO BASIS AT ALL upon which to declare that Piltdown is a fake anyway. Not only did the creation 'scientists' not discover the Pitldown fraud (they were just standingthere looking stupid), but they COULD not have, since they "don't believe in" the very things that led evolutionary biologists to suspect and then demonstrate that it was a fraud.

Since creationists reject radio-dating and the order of the fossil record, it would appear as if they simply have no reason to think that Piltdown IS a fake. . . . . .

Third, the evolutionary biologists (not creation 'scientists') who discovered the fraud did it using RADIO-DATING techniques --- the very same ones that creationuts keep telling us are so wildlyinaccurate and unreliable.

And finally, since creationists reject both radio-dating AND the order of the fossil record, they have NO BASIS AT ALL upon which to declare that Piltdown is a fake anyway. Not only did the creation 'scientists' not discover the Pitldown fraud (they were just standingthere looking stupid), but they COULD not have, since they "don't believe in" the very things that led evolutionary biologists to suspect and then demonstrate that it was a fraud.

This is one reason why people say ID/C is basically parasitic on real science. They reject the scientific method when it offends them, yet are happy to use science's findings if they think it'll help them win an argument. (But of course, it's never their own scientific findings, since, well, they don't have any...)

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

God forbid you tell a 10th grader that Darwin was a racist and his theory inspired the science of eugenics.

Oh, and it just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

29 March 2007Evolving HardwareWilliam DembskiHere’s an article on evolving hardware developed by Norwegian scientists. Favorite quote: “Every creature in nature is a product of evolution, and did I mention that creationism is just bull? What the team has done is add evolution to hardware (Norwegian), all hardware that you and I have used so far is made the creationism way, it’s made and can not be changed at runtime through evolution. All changes to existing hardware have to be made through software.” There’s not much detail in this article, but let me venture a guess: when the details come out, we’ll find that intelligent design (which includes evolutionary optimization) outshines unintelligent evolution at every turn.

.....

One Response 1

DaveScot

03/29/2007

9:35 pmAll changes to existing hardware have to be made through software.

Hogwash. A class of devices called the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) has been around for almost 25 years. I remember when my Intel Field Service Engineer was hyping Xilinx FPGA’s to me in the mid-1980’s. I presumed Intel had a financial stake in Xilinx. They were way too slow for anything I was doing but they can be reconfigured on the fly, in-circuit, running hot.

Oh, "we’ll find that intelligent design (which includes evolutionary optimization) outshines unintelligent evolution at every turn. " That must be nice. ID works better than evolution because it contains the working bit of evolution.

There’s not much detail in this article, but let me venture a guess: when the details come out, we’ll find that intelligent design (which includes evolutionary optimization) outshines unintelligent evolution at every turn.

A few months ago, Febble was getting all kinds of flak at UD for suggesting that natural evolutionary mechanisms constitute the intelligence behind the design of biocomplexity. Now Dembski is saying that intelligent design includes evolutionary optimization, which is exactly what RM+NS is. Looks like Febble was right.

--------------"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus